Case Information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§ APPEAL FROM THE 402ND IN THE INTEREST OF A. B.,

§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT A CHILD

§ WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

A.B. appeals the termination of her parental rights. A.B.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND

A.B. is the mother of A.B.1, ^[1] born March 21, 2012. The father is not a party to this appeal. On February 18, 2014, the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of A.B.1, for conservatorship, and for termination of A.B.’s parental rights. The Department was appointed temporary managing conservator of the child, and A.B. was appointed temporary possessory conservator.

At the conclusion of the trial on the merits, the trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that A.B. had engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to support termination of her parental rights. The trial court also found that termination of the parent-child relationship between A.B. and A.B.1 was in the child’s best interest. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between A.B. and A.B.1 be terminated. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V . C ALIFORNIA

A.B.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders , stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. This court has previously held that Anders procedures apply in parental rights termination cases when the Department has moved for termination. See In re K.S.M. , 61 S.W.3d 632, 634 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). In compliance with Anders , counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal, and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).

In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays , 904 S.W.2d at 923. We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and A.B.’s counsel’s brief. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. ^[2] See Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs ., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied).

C ONCLUSION

As required, A.B.’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. We agree with A.B.’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant his motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2.

Opinion delivered July 31, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)

*3 COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2015

IN THE INTEREST OF A. B., A CHILD

Appeal from the 402nd District Court

of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2014-096)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

[1] The initials of the mother and her child are the same. Therefore, we will refer to the mother as A.B. and to her child as A.B.1.

[2] Counsel for A.B. certified that he provided A.B. with a copy of his brief and informed her that she had the right to file her own brief. A.B. was given time to file her own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. 2